Connect with us

Business

LA skyscrapers for homeless could cost federal taxpayers over $1 billion

Published

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

A 104-unit tower is being pursued at a cost of $90 million. State staff noted would it cost $865,656 per apartment — more than California’s median sale price for an entire house.

Federal taxpayers might be on the hook for more than $1 billion over the lifetime of three downtown Los Angeles skyscrapers designed to house the homeless, state records show.

State and city programs provide the funding and financial tools to construct the three towers. But federal Section 8 Housing vouchers will be used to repay the state and city and fund private developer fees and investor returns over the 55-year life of the buildings.

“Taxpayers are being forced to foot the bill for over $800,000 per unit for homeless housing,” said Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Vice President of Communications Susan Shelley in an interview with The Center Square. “There should be an audit to determine if this is genuinely the best option to provide housing or if this is just making a lot of people rich off the taxpayers’ dime.”

These towers are projects of the Weingart Center Association, a homeless services nonprofit and major recipient of taxpayer funding, which was created by the Weingart Foundation. The Weingart Foundation describes itself as a “private grantmaking foundation advancing racial, social and economic justice in Southern California.”

Last year, Weingart’s 19-story, 278-apartment, $167.7 million tower was completed in Los Angeles’s Skid Row, which hosts the nation’s highest concentration of homeless people.

Constructed at cost of over $600,000 per unit, the tower was funded with $32 million of the city’s homeless housing bond, a $1.8 million land loan from the city, $48.7 million in deferrable loans from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, $56.9 million in tax credit equity and $85.3 million in tax-exempt bonds. The state treasurer’s report noted the project would “have positive cash flow from year one” and would be occupied entirely (except for the managers’ units) with people using federal Section 8 project-based vouchers.

The developer, Chelsea Investment Corporation, earned $18.3 million in development fees for the project, according to the project’s tax credit application.

While voucher details for new tower was not available, another nearby $171 million Weingart tower for the homeless that opened in June 2025, featuring 298 resident units and four manager units. It received federally-funded, city-administered housing vouchers worth $194 million over 20 years, as reported by the Los Angeles Business Journal.

Over the lifetime of the second tower, these vouchers, if renewed, would be worth $534 million.

Assuming proportional voucher revenue for the first tower, the two completed towers’ 55-year, federally-funded voucher revenue would be worth $1 billion.

Weingart is now pursuing a third, 104-unit tower at a cost of $90 million. State staff noted would it cost $865,656 per apartment — which is more than California’s median sale price for an entire house.

This tower — to be constructed at $1,048 per square foot, or as much as high-end luxury homes in the Los Angeles area — would also rely on Section 8 vouchers to fund occupancy, which, over the lifetime of the building, could provide nearly $200 million in revenue for developers. The Related Companies, the developer of the second and third project, will reportedly earn $10.4 million from developing the third tower.

Its development fee for the second project could not be established by the time of publication.

The investors who purchase the tax credits and invest in the building also receive distributions on the building’s profits, offering lower but much safer returns than the private market because the Section 8 vouchers nearly guarantee revenue and occupancy.

Market-rate, private-sector housing construction has collapsed in Los Angeles in recent years, with permitting approvals for government-regulated, income-restricted “affordable” housing rising from 24% in the prior four years to 60% in fiscal year 2023-2024. Real estate experts blame Measure ULA, the voter-approved “Mansion Tax.”

A UCLA recent report ties the transfer taxes to significant declines in housing production and property tax revenue growth.

“[ULA] has damaged the real estate market in the City of Los Angeles by adding a 4 to 5 and a half percent tax not just on mansions, as it was advertised, but also on apartment developments, commercial real estate —all properties in the City of Los Angeles above $5.3 million in value,” said Shelley. “HJTA is the proponent for a new initiative called the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13 that would repeal measure ULA because real estate transfer taxes were prohibited by Proposition 13 and the courts have improperly allowed them.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature successfully sued to block a similar measure from appearing on the state ballot in the November 2024 general election. HJTA’s new initiative, collecting signatures until February 2026, would repeal ULA and similar transfer taxes, and restore the prior maximum transfer tax of 0.11%.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, Weingart Center Association, Chelsea Investment Corporation, and The Related Companies did not respond to requests for comment from The Center Square by the time of publication.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Brave Browser Surpasses 100 Million Monthly Users

Published on

logo

By

The privacy-focused Brave browser has reached a major benchmark, announcing it now serves over 100 million people each month across both desktop and mobile platforms.
Founder and CEO Brendan Eich framed the achievement as a shift in user values: “100 million users represent more than a growth milestone, they constitute a movement for a better Web that puts users first,” he stated.
“Across the globe, users are choosing privacy and control over their online experience, instead of Big Tech’s tracking and abuse. Every product we’ve launched since our browser—our search engine, our premium products, our ad platform—has been built with privacy protections. As we expand our AI offerings, we will continue to design for privacy-by-default, which will fuel our next wave of growth.”
Brave’s browser has carved out a loyal user base by offering strong privacy features without compromising compatibility at a time when privacy is under growing threats.
Built on the Chromium engine, it runs the same sites and apps as Chrome but does so while shielding users from invasive tracking.
Over the past two years, Brave has seen steady momentum, gaining around 2.5 million new users monthly.
In addition to crossing the 100 million monthly active user threshold, the company now records 42 million people using the browser daily.
According to Brave, this level of adoption reflects a larger appetite for tools that operate outside the surveillance-driven models of the dominant tech companies.
“This growth has been fueled by a global awareness that Brave is an alternative to Big Tech and that users benefit greatly from a browser that preserves their privacy and is up to 3 times faster than competitors,” the company stated.
When Apple rolled out the browser choice screen on iOS in the EU earlier this year, part of compliance with the Digital Markets Act, Brave saw its daily installs increase.
Beyond the browser, Brave has built an ecosystem centered on privacy. Its search engine, Brave Search, is one of the few truly independent options available in the Western market.
Unlike other engines tied to advertising giants, Brave Search processes about 1.6 billion user queries each month, roughly 20 billion annually, and delivers more than 15 million AI-powered answers daily.
That AI functionality is expanding. Brave is preparing a new version of its Leo assistant that will include what it calls an “agentic experience.”
According to the company, this will be delivered through a locked-down browser profile that prevents the AI from accessing private data in other tabs or windows.
“As a privacy company, we pride ourselves on adhering to a stronger variation of Google’s old (and since abandoned) mantra,” the company said.
“When we say ‘Can’t be evil,’ we mean we don’t have access to personal user data in the first place.”
Brave has also made its Privacy Preserving Product Analytics (P3A) tool publicly accessible, allowing anyone to examine how it handles analytics without compromising user privacy.
Continue Reading

Automotive

Canada’s EV subsidies are wracking up billions in losses for taxpayers, and not just in the auto industry

Published on

CAE Logo

By Dan McTeague

To anyone who thought that the Liberals’ decision to postpone enforcement of their Electric Vehicle (EV) mandate by one year was part of a well-thought-out plan to get that disastrous program back on track, well, every day brings with it news that you were wrong. In fact, the whole project seems to be coming apart at the seams.

Here’s the latest crisis Mark Carney and his carnival of ideologues are having to deal with. Late last year, the Liberal party instituted a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs. The idea was to protect the Canadian EV industry from China dumping their vehicles into our country, at prices far lower than Canadian companies can afford due to their massive state subsidies. This has been a major problem in the EU, which is also attempting to force a transition to EVs.

But Beijing wasn’t going to take that lying down. Taking advantage of Western environmentalist sentiment is an important part of their economic plans — see, for instance, how they’ve cornered the global solar panel market, though the factories making them are powered by massive amounts of coal. So they retaliated with a 75% duty on Canadian canola seed and a 100% tariff on canola oil and canola meal.

This was big enough to really hurt Canadian farmers, and Ottawa was forced to respond with more than $300 million in new relief programs for canola producers. Even so, our farmers have warned that short-term relief from the government will do little if the tariffs are here for the long-term.

With pressure on Carney mounting, his Industry Minister Melanie Joly announced that the government was “looking at” dropping tariffs on Chinese EVs in the hope that China would ease off on their canola tariffs.

That may be good news for canola producers, but how about the automotive companies? They’ve grown increasingly unhappy with the EV mandate, as Canadian consumers have been slow to embrace them, and they’ve been confronted with the prospect of paying significant fines unless they raise prices on the gas-and-diesel driven vehicles which consumers actually want to make the EVs that they don’t really want more attractive.

That’s the context for Brian Kingston, CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, saying that dropping these tariffs “would be a disaster.”

“China has engaged in state-supported industrial policy to create massive overcapacity in EV production, and that plan is coming to fruition now,” Kingston said. “When you combine that with weak labour and environmental standards, Chinese manufacturers are not competing with Canadian, American, or Mexican manufacturers on a level playing field. We simply cannot allow those vehicles to be dumped into the Canadian market.”

The auto manufacturers Kingston represents are understandably upset about suddenly having to compete with underpriced Chinese EVs. After all, with the government forcing everyone to buy a product they really don’t want, are most people going to patriotically pay more for that product, or will they just grab whichever one is cheaper? I know which one I think is more likely.

And then there’s a related problem — the federal and provincial governments have “invested” somewhere in the neighborhood of $52.5 billion to make Canada a cog in the global EV supply chain. In response to Joly’s announcement, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who has gone “all in” on EVs, wrote an open letter to the prime minister saying that canceling the tariffs would mean losing out on that “investment,” and put 157,000 Canadian automotive jobs at risk.

Now, it’s worth noting that automakers all over Ontario have already been cutting jobs while scaling back their EV pledges. So even with the tariffs, this “investment” hasn’t been paying out particularly well. Keeping them in place just to save Doug Ford’s bacon seems like the worst of all options.

But it seems to me that the key to untangling this whole mess has been the option I’ve been advocating from the beginning: repeal the EV mandate. That makes Canada less of a mark for China. It benefits the taxpayers by not incentivizing our provincial and federal governments to throw good money after bad, attempting to subsidize companies to protect a shrinking number of EV manufacturing jobs.

The heart of this trade war is an entirely artificial demand for EVs. Removing the mandate from the equation would lower the stakes.

In the end, the best policy is to trust Canadians to make their own decisions. Let the market decide.

Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!

Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.

Donate Now

Continue Reading

Trending

X